Sacrament Which is proper to those who as the Apostle teacheth are to Examine themselves to Remember thereby the death of Christ and Sacramentally to Discerne the Lords Body âšœ CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Å¿ Conc Carthag 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis mortuis dari prohibet et consequenter pueris qui utrique sunt divini illius cibi incapaces ut quidam ratiocinantur quià tales non possint accipere nec comedere Et Lateranens Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm cùm ad annos discretionis pervenerint Eucharistiam accipiant Quià verò spiritualis manducatio et bibitio est sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest frustrà pueris Sacramentum et cùm periculo porrigeretur Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere quia hoc possit trinus et quatrimus praestare sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum et discernere ab aliis cibis Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 11. in illa verba Dedit Discipulis pag. 78. Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But wee also summon against the former assertion eight of your ancient t And of this opinion were Mayor Petrus Soto Paludanus Alensis Gubriel Catharinus Dom. Soto Ration eorum saith the same Ies quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere quod parvuli non possunt Suarez Ies quo sup And to the former Schoole-men to make them even wee may adde also Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia Schoolemen who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us And wee further as it were â—resting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his Writ the Sacred Scripture whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of receiving The first is * 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death untill his coming againe All which Three being Acts of Iudgement how they may agree unto Infants being persons void of Iudgement judge you And remember wee pray you that wee speake of Sacramentall Eating and not of that use * See above Sect. 10 before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup HE LIKEVVISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which words Like maner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainely displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrary Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councel of Constance decreed that a Christus sub utraque â—pecie Discipulis administravit Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ sub utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur tamen haec consuerudo ut à Laicis sub specie pâ—nis tantùm reciperetur habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Conc. Constant Sess 13. Although Christ indeed and the Primitive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kindes notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her b Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto edocta ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta declarat docet nullo divino jure Laicos Clericos non consecrantes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit Apostolis tradidit Concil Trident. Sess 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laicks yea and also by all those Priests who being present at Masse do not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVtwee demand what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councell of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c Respondeo Fuit reprobatum Conc. CoÌ„â—antiens Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te pâ—ccaverit si te non audiat Dic Ecclesiae Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut Conc. Basil apud AEneanâ—i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij Councell of Basil doth prove from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Objectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great
judged by the different Dispositions of Professors then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome as there is betweene lively Fervencie and senselesse Numnes and Coldnes that is to say Godly zeale and Godlesse Indevotion and Negligence yet a Negligence not only approved which is impious but that which is the height of Impiety even applauded also by your Priests among whom the m Vt nobis Iocupletissiâ—i testes atque omni exceptione majores retulerunt in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Romanis Pontificibus non solùm Reverendi Patres Calicem vitae non cupiunt aut petere audent c. Gasp Card Villalp apud Act. Concil Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great joy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany dare not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè SECT XIII IN this wee are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse the intolerable Arrogancie the vile Perjury the extreame Madnesse and Folly together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants For what Vnâ—â—aritablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes do notwithstanding boast even in the open Councel of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome do not onely * See the last testimonie above their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt wee thinke besides the Impietie thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answer n Tertio loco objiciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam antiquitatem atque potestatem atque potestatem aiunt enim Ecclesiam primitivam quae antiquior scientiâ atque vitae sanctitate praestantior erat utraque specie usam fuisse nostra igitur illam imitari debet praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positivis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis Respondemus non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere quâm alium absolute sapientiorem Saepe etiam accidit minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem quem melior non vitat Salmcron Ies Tom. 9. Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco pag. 320. Although the primitive Church say they did exceed our's in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another Which answer if wee consider the many Reasons which you have heard the Fathers give for the use of Both kinds and their consonant practice thereof what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas we have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church allegeth is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also for in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworn o Forma Iuramenti per Bullam Pij quarti Apostolicas Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto Ego spondeo juro c. To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the p Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridentino declarata confirmata firmissimè teneo Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum credo c. Councel of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of Both kindes as hath been acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remained in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councel of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjurie Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Objections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers divers of them being no lesse grosse than was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse than three hundred yeeres and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Do this concerning Both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in Both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuit q Licet Gabriel quidam alij sentiunt divini juris esse ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet nihilominùs tamen opinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse ut in una tantum specie sacrificet viz. in consecratione panis sine vino quià putant multa esse juris divini quae remittere relaxare queat Pontifex ob publicam aliquam gravem necessitatem ut videmus votum jus-jâ—randum Matrimonium ratum non consummatum authoritate Pontificis relaxari dissolvi Et ità in hac questione prima
puto probabilius verius esse ut dixi juris esse divini ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile authoritate Pontificiâ ob publicam urgentem necessitatem praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse Sed quia nunquà m est relaxatum ego consilium darem ut nunquà m relaxaretur Azorius Iesuit Tom. 1. Iustit Moral lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium pag. 857. Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with I saith hee would give my Councel that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If hee or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope * âšœ Extravag de verbo signific Tit. 14. Cap. 4. Gâ—ossa Dominum Deum nostrum Papam insituled in your publike Glosse OVR LORD GOD THE POPE as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your decrees holy Father may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his councell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to do namely to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite to dispense with his Papall Decrees And notwithstanding the Iesuites Suppose wee may depose that your Romish licence for but One kinde is a dispencing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ âšœ And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke * See above in this Chapter Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appeare in that Conclusion which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus Where he resolved that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority not imitable by the Church And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope So hee Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only one kinde and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie and authority of Christ the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this That the Administration and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indispensable We are already wearied with citing of the manifold vilde odious and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors for this your Cause yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron against the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes The use of Both kinds saith r Dispensandus non est utriusque speciei usus Hereticis quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus nec Catholicis quia debent distingui ab Haereticis qui communicant sub duabus Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 37. 5. His potius pag. 411. he is not to bee allowed to Catholikes because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because holy things are not to bee given unto Dogges Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges to be distinguished from them in this and other so many commanded Acts wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers from the Apostles of Christ and from Christ himselfe An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome against the late Romish Popes and Church in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution SECT XIV THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were as all the world will say in authority of Command and in sincerity of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ and of the Apostles So you have heard a P. Calixtus See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Pope Calixtus Anno Christi 218. requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was wee thinke that Pope b P. Greg. Ibid. at â— Gregory Anno 60â— commanded every one present at the Masse and not purposing to Communicate to Depart There is an History related by AEneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the Second which sheweth the reason why another c See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall 6. 21 Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeelded a liberty to the Sclavonians to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice which is written in the Psalmes Let every tongue praise the Lord. d P. Iulius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Pope Iulius Anno 336. was much busied in repressing the Sopping of bread in the Chalice and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time and the reason which he gave was this Because quoth he these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and our Church of Rome doth the same Where he addeth concerning the manner of Communicating e Ibid. Wee reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if he had meant with the same breath to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament but in one of Both. And who can say but that Gregory and Leo both Popes f See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure we are that Pope g P. Gelasius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. r. Gelasius Anno 404 called the Abuse in dismembring of this Sacrament by receiving but in One kinde A Grand Sacrilege Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine under Pope Sergius stiled h Synod Tolet. 16. Conc. Generale sub Sergio Papa Baron ad An. 693. This Councel cap 6 saith Quontam quidaÌ„ non panes mundos atque integros sed crussulâ—m particulam offerunt quod nequaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur ubi legitur Christum benedixisse dedisse panem c Apud Bâ—nium Tom 3. And this being by Baroniâ—â— a Generall Councel could not conclude without the Popes consent in your judgements Generall Anno 69â— reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion is not found in the Sacred storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish Opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians
the same your Oath made to damne others doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable If peradventure any of you shall oppose saying that none of you within this Kingdome which never admitted of the Councel of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sense and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised wee are now to recognize such Errours wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholike Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretickes by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending b Booke 1. thorowout Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine and used onely Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iump with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout literally and why you urge his other Saying Except you eate my flesh k Ibid. for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails because forsooth the words of Christ are l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Ioh. 3. Borne againe who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but onely Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantiation to be by n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarily inferreth a Body called and believed to be Christs which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the Heresie of Apollinaris who taught a p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly You exclude all judgement of q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses in discerning Bread to be truly Bread as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Prâ—teol Elench Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body when hee was heere alive which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretike and instantly coudemned by Å¿ Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius BOOKE IV. Catholike Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious Heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eutychians and Eunomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct termes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth I. The Heretikes who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. â— Chap. â— Sect. 3. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN * ⎠* ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.
in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Sacramentall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived through the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium thorow which hee seeth as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe which is seene thorow a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by concelving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance Yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby wee see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Object which wee see is indifferent then say we the judgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sense you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning We defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although hee grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true Body even by the onely Argument from the sense of Touching b Consequentia Christi affirmativè sumpta Hoc palpatur hoc videtur Ergo est Corpus optuâ—a fuit quià sensus non fallitur circa proprium Objectum â—taque necessariò quod videtur tangitur Corporale est At negativè hoc non palpatur nec videtur Ergò non est corpus Dominus non fecit mala est Non falluntur Sensus nostri cum nos album quid rotundum solidum sentire arbitramur quae sunt propria objècta Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus â—atere denunciant falluntur Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum seu Phantasma sed verum Corpus id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit Illud autem Corpus esse humanum idem quod anteà suerat non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento ex Tangendi sensu desumpto quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens sed multis alijs modis loquendo manducando testimonio Angelorum miraculo Piscium allegatione Scripturarum Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo Yet saith hee was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body and the very same which it was So he Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee had a Body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same Humane Body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I Luke 24 39. Now because * 1. Cor. 15. It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it bee the Same Body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * Ioh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the Same Body as Two of your Iesuites do also observe the One with an c Optimè Origenes Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum Tolet. les in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè the Other with a d Probatum est Christum idem Corpus numero demonstraÌ„sse Silarez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1. Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sense as the Foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth hee repeate and inculcate this * 1. Cor. 15. 5. Hee was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Senses * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. That which wee have heard which wee have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth * 1. Ioh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceived both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch c Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor non polle ab ullo Dâ—mone formari corpus corpus adeò simile humano ut siquis cum curà animi attentione id tangeret non facilè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum Itaque non poterit Daemon similitudine corporis humani oculos fallere Tactus autem sensum fallere omninò non potest quod quatuor Argumentis confirmabo Hoc verissimum esse patet ex eo quod Christus dixit discipulis suis Palpate videte Thomae After digitum c. Perer Ies in Gen. 6. num 78. pag. 2. I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Body that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of understanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera osta carnes discernere mollitiem duritiem eorum non dixisset ijs Palpate videte ac si diceret Palpate Percipite veras carnes ossa Vasquez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art 2. disp 184. cap. 2. pag. 487. Thomas dicit singula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia